Talk:Siege of Pondicherry (1793)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

, I will engage in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I've done most of these, although I skipped two - explanations below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101, thank you again for your timely response to my review and comments below. I've re-reviewed the article and find that you gave sufficiently incorporated the majority of my suggestions. As for the colonies comment, I was trying to explain that the places mentioned were not their own individually-governed colonies, but a collection of places under colonial rule from Pondicherry. As it stands, the writing still works, I just thought the nomenclature could be modified. Great work, and congratulations on another job well done! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, as promised, I've completed my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of your article. I find that it exceeds the criteria for Good Article status, but I did have a few comments and suggestions that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again for all your hard work on this one! -- West Virginian   (talk)  16:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Siege of Pondicherry, establishes the siege's necessary context, and explains why the siege is otherwise notable.
 * The info box for the siege is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
 * The image of the French map depicting the 1778 Siege of Pondicherry has been released into the public domain, and is therefore suitable for usage here in this article.
 * The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Background
 * I suggest adding a comma after the natural pause following "In the 1790s"
 * Reads better to me the way it is, hope thats OK.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Siege of Pondicherry
 * In the first paragraph, I wonder if it may read better rendered as "Upon investigation, however, this ship proved to be..."
 * A comma could be added after "On 28 July" in the second paragraph.
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Aftermath
 * Would it read better this way at the beginning of the first paragraph? "British losses of 88 killed and 131 wounded during the siege were relatively heavy;"
 * Since the place names mentioned weren't individual "French colonies" per se, but were "colonial possessions" of France on the Indian subcontinent, I wonder if it may be more appropriate to refer to them as colonial possessions rather than colonies. Again, this is merely a suggestion.
 * I'm not sure what the difference is, can you clarify?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.